Final Blog Assignment

1. In the note "Evils Imminent," Erik Larson writes "Beneath the gore and smoke and loam, this book is about the evanescence of life, and why some men choose to fill their brief allotment of time engaging the impossible, others in the manufacture of sorrow" [xi]. What does the book reveal about "the ineluctable conflict between good and evil"? What is the essential difference between men like Daniel Burnham and Henry H. Holmes? Are they alike in any way?

     Devil in the White City reveals that good and evil will inevitably exist, conflict, and eventually determine the future of the world.  It demonstrates that oftentimes evil is portrayed as "good," and its deception can be lethal.  Sometimes good intentions can lead to evil, or lead others astray.  For example, even though Holmes was a murderer he appeared innocent and sweet.  He helped those in need through paying off their debts and offering them jobs, food, housing, and even life insurance policies.  He was so clever at the art of "pretending" that no one caught it, and several women were lured into his trap, and ended up dead.  The essential difference between men like Burnham and Holmes is their sincerity: Holmes was a complete deception, while Burnham was completely genuine.  Each men knew how to use clever tactics to achieve their "dreams," but Burnham used to these tactics to achieve greatness, and reaped a good reward.  Holmes, on the other hand, used goodness to achieve a bitter end; he thought only of himself and not of the suffering his actions would eventually inflict on other people.  In this way they are both alike and different.  

2.  In describing the collapse of the roof of Manufacturers and Liberal Arts Building, Larson writes "In a great blur of snow and silvery glass the building's roof—that marvel of late nineteenth-century hubris, enclosing the greatest volume of unobstructed space in history—collapsed to the floor below" [p. 196–97]. Was the entire Fair, in its extravagant size and cost, an exhibition of arrogance? Do such creative acts automatically engender a darker, destructive parallel? 

     The entire Fair, in its extravagant size and cost, was both an exhibition of arrogance and not.  It took two years of construction, thousands of workers, hundreds of architects, millions of dollars, failures, and breakthroughs.  It was the manifestation of the talent and strength of the US.  If offered people from all over the world to see and experience new inventions, such as machinery and electricity, soda and artwork, the Ferris Wheel and gorgeous landscaping.  It helped boost employment by offering millions of workers full-time jobs in building and constructing the fair.  It showed America's tenacity and refusal to give up when times get hard.  It was only arrogant in that its sole purpose was to top the exhibition in Paris and prove America's greatness to the rest of the planet.  But because it was such a masterpiece America deserved to take some pride in their abilities and achievements. Such creative acts do not automatically engender a darker, destructive parallel in and of themselves.  In the case of the fair, its creativity in itself was neither dark or destructive; it only served to mask a cereal-killer's darkness and destructiveness.  Because people were so distracted by the fair's significance it kept them from dwelling on all of the crimes and disappearances that were occurring in Chicago.  But this was only coincidence.  Throughout the centuries there have been great artists who were not evil, such as DaVinci, Rembrandt, Bach, Mozart, and Shakespeare.  

      

Blog #2

“A Modest Proposal” by Dr. Jonathon Swift is a terrific example of satire.  He challenges the Irish people’s method of child raising, but also dehumanizes them and hints at his dislike of Catholics, landlords, upper-class taking advantage of the poor, taverns, and forced marriages.  But the method he chose by which to do this is odd and unexpected: he suggests that infant flesh be consumed.  He hints at his proposition by saying: “…a child just dropt from its dam, may be supported by her milk, for a solar year, with little other nourishment: at most not above the value of two shillings, which the other may certainly get, or the value in scraps, by her lawful occupation of begging; and it is exactly at one year old that I propose to provide for them in such a manner, as, instead of being a charge upon their parents, or the parish or wanting food and raiment for the rest of their lives, they shall, on the contrary, contribute to the feeding, and partly to the clothing of many thousands.”  Then he continues on with: “I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed, is, at a year old, a most delicious nourishing and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricasie, or a ragoust.”  And also “…the fore or hind quarter will make a reasonable dish, and seasoned with a little pepper or salt, will be very good boiled on the fourth day, especially in winter.” 

     He dehumanizes the Irish people by referring to the women as “breeders,” and comparing the general population to livestock, such as horses and cattle.  He says “…I calculate there may be about two thousand couple whose wifes are breeders; from which number I subtract thirty thousand couple, who are able to maintain their own children, (although I apprehend there cannot be so many, under the present distresses of the kingdom) but this being granted, there will remain an hundred and seventy thousand breeders.”   

     He hints at his dislike of Catholics by frequently referring to them as Papists and making fun of their customs.  He writes: “Infant’s flesh will be in season throughout the year, but more plentiful in March, and a little before and after; for we are told by a grave author, an eminent French physician, that fish being a prolifick dyet, there are more children born in Roman Catholick countries about nine months after Lent, the markets will be more glutted than usual, because the number of popish infants, is at least three to one in this kingdom, and therefore it will have one other collateral advantage, by lessening the number of Papists among us.” 

     He hints at his dislike of landlords by making the comment: “…The poorer tenants will have something valuable of their own, which by lay may be liable to a distress, and help to pay their landlord’s rent, their corn and cattle being already seized, and money a thing unknown.”  He is saying that the landlords force the peasants to work for them, without pay and without any fruit to show for their labor.  He thinks this is unfair and uses irony to reveal how horrible such a practice is.   

     He hints at his dislike of upper-class taking advantage of the poor  and taverns by saying: “Food would likewise bring great custom to taverns, where the vintners will certainly be so prudent as to procure the best receipts for dressing it to perfection; and consequently have their houses frequented by all the fine gentlemen, who justly value themselves upon their knowledge in good eating; and a skilful cool, who understands how to oblige his guests, will contrive to make it as expensive as they please.” 

      Overall, I thought Dr. Swift’s use of satire was very effective in conveying his purpose.  He used sarcasm lightly and humorously, rather than attacking the people or beliefs he disagreed with.  I thought this was more respectful, and would immediately create his audience to be more open towards his subject.   He couldn’t do everything to help his people, but this small gesture (his paper) was his contribution to society; his attempt to right what he believed to be wrong.             

       

Extended Journal Response Blog

     When Hemingway created a hero in "The Sun Also Rises," he most certainly didn't have a Superman, Spiderman, or Batman theme in mind.  His idea of a hero was not a man dressed in tights that had superhuman strength, or could swing from buildings by shooting spiderwebs from his wrists.  His idea of a hero was not a flying, cape-adorned, mindless douche bag.  His hero neither rescued poor puppies in distress, killed the Green Goblin, or sought out any other means of solving mankind's predicaments.  In fact, Hemingway’s hero can barely—if at all—compare to our modern heroes.  We all know what this hero isn’t now; let’s move on to what could possibly make this character one.

     Nineteen-year-old bullfighter Romero is Hemingway’s hero in that he exhibits "grace under pressure," handles himself assuredly and confronts the danger head-on through his bullfighting, bravery, purity, and code of ethics.  

     The book’s main character (Jake) often notes that “He had very nice manners.”  He bowed, smiled often, bought drinks for people, and was all-around a sociable and polite young man.  He was did not disrespect anyone, specifically Brett (the beautiful woman loved by all men), and he wasn’t flirty, pushy, or constantly “tight” (drunk.)  He wasn’t proud or boastful either.    

     Romero was also described as “a damned good-looking boy.”  He was tan, muscular, tough-looking, and sexy while simultaneously emitting purity, and boyish-innocence. 

     All of these attributes were displayed most vibrantly while he was bullfighting.  Jake describes in detail what a wonder it was to watch Romero at this sport: “Romero was the whole show.  I do not think Brett saw any other bullfighter.  No one else did either, except the hard-shelled technicians.  It was all Romero.  There were two other matadors, but they did not count….Romero took the bull away from a fallen horse with his cape, and held him with the cape and turned him, smoothly and suavely, never wasting the bull…Romero avoided every brusque movement and saved his bulls or the last when he wanted them, not winded and decomposed but smoothly worn down…Romero never made any contortions, always it was straight and pure and natural in line.  The others twisted themselves like corkscrews, their elbows raised, and leaned against the flanks of the bull after his horns had passed, to give a faked look of danger.  Afterward, all that was faked turned bad and gave an unpleasant feeling.  Romero’s bullfighting gave real emotion, because he kept the absolutely purity of line in his movements and always quietly and calmly let the horns pass him close each time….Romero had the old thing, the holding of his purity of line through the maximum of exposure, while he dominated the bull by making him realize he was unattainable, while he prepared him for the killing.” 

     Through this passage, it is clearly evident what an extraordinary, talented, graceful, and authentic bullfighter Romero is.  After only working at the sport three years, he has mastered risky techniques that no other fighters in the ring have.  He has learned old tricks and makes intelligent, thoughtful moves towards his goal.  He continues to fight when he is injured; whenever he is knocked down, he gets back up, whether it is in a fist-fight with Robert Cohn or being stamped on by a wild bull.   

     Compared to the other book’s characters, he is exceptionally strong and purpose-driven.  While the rest are laden down with painful memories of WWI, or mourning lost love and burying their troubles in alcohol, constant social functions, and sex, Romero is fulfilling his dreams.  He is not ambling through life like “The Lost Generation,” waiting for happiness and success to come to him, but is rather running full speed towards them.  He does not, like every other man, have to fight to get Brett’s attention; she is automatically drawn to him.  Their relationship is natural and healthy because Romero does not allow himself to become too attached. 

     Romero is not Superman, but he is truly a hero in that he exhibits "grace under pressure," handles himself assuredly and confronts the danger head-on through his bullfighting, bravery, purity, and code of ethics.    

        

       

Extended Journal Response Blog

    

     When Hemingway created a hero in "The Sun Also Rises," he most certainly didn't have a Superman, Spiderman, or Batman theme in mind.  His idea of a hero was not a man dressed in tights that had superhuman strength, or could swing from buildings by shooting spiderwebs from his wrists.  His idea of a hero was not a flying, cape-adorned, mindless douche bag.  His hero neither rescued poor puppies in distress, killed the Green Goblin, or sought out any other means of solving mankind's predicaments.  In fact, Hemingway’s hero can barely—if at all—compare to our modern heroes.  We all know what this hero isn’t now; let’s move on to what could possibly make this character one.

     Nineteen-year-old bullfighter Romero is Hemingway’s hero in that he exhibits "grace under pressure," handles himself assuredly and confronts the danger head-on through his bullfighting, bravery, purity, and code of ethics. 

     The book’s main character (Jake) often notes that “He had very nice manners.”  He bowed, smiled often, bought drinks for people, and was all-around a sociable and polite young man.  He was did not disrespect anyone, specifically Brett (the beautiful woman loved by all men), and he wasn’t flirty, pushy, or constantly “tight” (drunk.)  He wasn’t proud or boastful either.    

     Romero was also described as “a damned good-looking boy.”  He was tan, muscular, tough-looking, and sexy while simultaneously emitting purity, and boyish-innocence. 

     All of these attributes were displayed most vibrantly while he was bullfighting.  Jake describes in detail what a wonder it was to watch Romero at this sport: “Romero was the whole show.  I do not think Brett saw any other bullfighter.  No one else did either, except the hard-shelled technicians.  It was all Romero.  There were two other matadors, but they did not count….Romero took the bull away from a fallen horse with his cape, and held him with the cape and turned him, smoothly and suavely, never wasting the bull…Romero avoided every brusque movement and saved his bulls or the last when he wanted them, not winded and decomposed but smoothly worn down…Romero never made any contortions, always it was straight and pure and natural in line.  The others twisted themselves like corkscrews, their elbows raised, and leaned against the flanks of the bull after his horns had passed, to give a faked look of danger.  Afterward, all that was faked turned bad and gave an unpleasant feeling.  Romero’s bullfighting gave real emotion, because he kept the absolutely purity of line in his movements and always quietly and calmly let the horns pass him close each time….Romero had the old thing, the holding of his purity of line through the maximum of exposure, while he dominated the bull by making him realize he was unattainable, while he prepared him for the killing.” 

     Through this passage, it is clearly evident what an extraordinary, talented, graceful, and authentic bullfighter Romero is.  After only working at the sport three years, he has mastered risky techniques that no other fighters in the ring have.  He has learned old tricks and makes intelligent, thoughtful moves towards his goal.  He continues to fight when he is injured; whenever he is knocked down, he gets back up, whether it is in a fist-fight with Robert Cohn or being stamped on by a wild bull.   

     Compared to the other book’s characters, he is exceptionally strong and purpose-driven.  While the rest are laden down with painful memories of WWI, or mourning lost love and burying their troubles in alcohol, constant social functions, and sex, Romero is fulfilling his dreams.  He is not ambling through life like “The Lost Generation,” waiting for happiness and success to come to him, but is rather running full speed towards them.  He does not, like every other man, have to fight to get Brett’s attention; she is automatically drawn to him.  Their relationship is natural and healthy because Romero does not allow himself to become too attached. 

     Romero is not Superman, but he is truly a hero in that he exhibits "grace under pressure," handles himself assuredly and confronts the danger head-on through his bullfighting, bravery, purity, and code of ethics.